[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       bird-users
Subject:    Re: Bug? / Patch for BGP next hop issue with frr peers
From:       Sebastian Hahn <bird_users () sebastianhahn ! net>
Date:       2020-04-29 13:51:05
Message-ID: E76D9AF0-DBD3-4927-A270-19D107A61548 () sebastianhahn ! net
[Download RAW message or body]



> On 29. Apr 2020, at 03:01, Ondrej Zajicek <santiago@crfreenet.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:15:33PM +0200, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
>>> Well, the RFC 2545 is a bit vague and AFAIK nobody standardized
>>> link-local only sessions. Our position is that the first address is
>>> always global (as that is necessary for next hop resolving) and the
>>> second (optional) is link-local, therefore in cases where no global
>>> address is available the proper format of next hop should be (:: ll).
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately, there are other implementations that use in such cases
>>> (ll) or (ll ll), we should handle that in bgp_decode_next_hop_ip(), but
>>> the second case is not handled there. Will send you a patch.
>> 
>> Hi Ondrej,
>> 
>> thanks for the explanations! In the meantime I have found this bugreport
>> from the FRR project, https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/issues/6259 - it
>> appears they also want to change the behaviour on their side.
> 
> Hi
> 
> Here is the promised patch. Could you try it?

Hi Ondrej,

the patch seems to work fine in my quick testing.

Thanks
Sebastian

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]